Re: Updated editorial guidelines - Quad PLEASE READ

[Manek Dubash]

Here's an interesting email thread starting with an email blast from a copywriting agency, then my response, and the agency's final word. Educational, no?

Hello everyone,

I’ve recently updated the xxxxx editorial guidelines to better reflect what we expect from the articles we receive. Because of the recent Google changes, we no longer produce advertorials for brands. However, we do still produce content – and now the focus is on really high standard, investigative, interesting and ENGAGING content. We no longer pay for articles to be placed on different publishers, so the articles need to be written to an editorial standard that an editor of a magazine, blog or newspaper would be happy to publish.

If you’ve been given a travel brief to write about New York, for example, it’s important to research the area thoroughly and write an informative piece that offers something to the reader that perhaps they didn’t know before. If you’ve been given a finance brief, you need to know the subject area and include statistics and quotes from thought-leaders that will back up your statements. You’re a writer – so write! 

If you have any questions about the new guidelines, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Similarly, if you’d like to be taken off my writers list, please let me know and I will do.

 I’m looking forward to working with you on some really great content.

--

My response:

Sorry - but I find this more than a little rather patronising - and maybe even somewhat bullying. I'm a writer and I'm quite happy to write (and frequently do) high quality, fully researched copy for editors.

However, I wonder if you have any idea how long it takes to research an article. Between two to five times longer than it takes to write it is my experience.

If you want professional copy, you need to pay professional rates. Your typical request for five 500-word articles at £20 each really is nowhere near (and I mean nowhere near) what a professional writer not only expects but could physically produce and still eat.

If your policy of cheap-as-chips copy ever changes, please let me know. Until then, I don't think I'd like to receive any more requests for copy.
--

The agency's response to me:

Thanks for getting back to me and please accept my apologies if I came over patronising or bullying – that was certainly not my intention.

I do have some experience with researching for articles – I’m a journalist by trade so I understand the time it takes to research thoroughly an article before it gets written. However, I also know how satisfying it is for a writer (whether copywriter, journalist or professional writer) to produce something of quality that will be published on a high authority site. There’s little to no satisfaction from churning out copy that is badly written, not researched, and of no use to anyone but to produce links for a brand. That’s why the Google changes are actually a great thing for writers.

We can only work with our budgets though, and our budgets determine that we pay our writers between £20 and £30 per 500 word article. We pay double what other copywriting agencies pay their writers and share our articles out as fairly as possible.

I don’t think it’s unfair to ask our copywriters to research a topic before writing 500 words on it. It’s a pity that you no longer want to be included on the list. I’ve taken you off. Please let me know if you ever change your mind.

[Marc Beishon]

On Friday, August 23, 2013 1:16:46 PM UTC+1, Manek Dubash wrote:

Here's an interesting email thread starting with an email blast from a copywriting agency, then my response, and the agency's final word. Educational, no?

I very much doubt these new media agencies are charging their clients so little to justify low fees for writers - in my experience, web design etc commands a premium. But £20-30 for 500 really is ridiculous. I did a 500 word piece on ERP for £100 recently for one of these agencies and I wouldn't go below this - except that this agency has now told me to resubmit my invoice as 'VAT inclusive' - meaning the fee has come down to £83.33, which I'm not going to do. They are a VAT registered limited company but this is like dealing with rank amateurs. 

M. 

[Nigel Whitfield]

That's outrageous; They're taking advantage of your registration to cut your fee. I'd be tempted to shop them to the Revenue, though I appreciate that's not good for an ongoing relationship. Whether verbal or written, a price is a price, and VAT doesn't come into it.
--
Nigel Whitfield - Technical journalism and consultancy
Check out my digital TV and technology blog at http://gonedigital.net
020 8880 5900 / ni...@nigelwhitfield.com / PO Box 7248 London E5 8UL
UK mobiles: text NIGEL INFO to 60300 for a vCard (standard text rate)

[Steve Gold]

Lordy - I didn't know things were that bad Manek.

I thought Micro Mart were scraping the barrel a few years ago when they appproached me offering £50 per '000 words - admittedly on a topic I know something about (allegedly).

Good riposte - nice one!

+ Steve :) 

Steve Gold, Business & IT Journalist
PO Box 1014, Sheffield S10 5YG, UK

< Have IP connection - will travel >

--
--
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to FleetStreet...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/FleetStreet
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FleetStreet" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fleetstreet...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Bryan Betts]

This looks like a blatantly admission that in the past they published
any old rope, any mashed together cut'n'paste verbiage, as long as it
had the right SEO keywords in it. What a surprise... But expecting to
pay the same low rate for properly researched stuff - ye gods!

Bryan

On 08/23/2013 02:16 PM, Manek Dubash wrote:
> If you�ve been given a travel brief to write about New York, for
> example, it�s important to research the area thoroughly and write an

> informative piece that offers something to the reader that perhaps

> they didn�t know before. If you�ve been given a finance brief, you

[PJ White]

 I’m looking forward to working with you on some really great content.

Needs help in managing expectations, then. And in writing, come to that.

All quite shocking.

PJ

[Martin Banks]

I share everyone's horror at this, especially just how blatant it is.

 

So may be, as they are so damned savvy at social media, you should start a social media campaign against this - target the companies that will be sponsoring whatever copy is written - the `do you really want to be associated with this type of practice, do you want to have the media suggesting your products should be boycotted because you are so exploitative?' etc etc

 

 

On Friday, August 23, 2013 1:16:46 PM UTC+1, Manek Dubash wrote:

[Danny Bradbury]

I got the same mail, having fallen onto their mailing list somehow a year or two ago and never having taken the trouble to get myself removed. The exchange went like this:

***

Hi Claire. High quality, engaging editorial is what I do. Advertorials aren't my thing, which is why I haven't been writing for you. The payments you were offering didn't fit my rate. What pay rates are you offering these days?

 

Danny

***

I’m afraid we only work with what our clients offer us. We pay on average £20-£30 per article. I understand this is below your rate. Would you like me to take you off our list?

***

Yes please. Thanks Claire.

***

They're clearly feeling the pressure if they have to send out blanket mails like this complaining about the copy they're getting, rather than politely talking privately to one or two writers that actually work for them. It doesn't make me angry. It makes me happy. It means that the content mill model isn't working, and that clients are probably complaining. 

--

[Ben Tudor]

Quite.

I'm coming up to my second anniversary as a content bod for a PR agency, working in a team of writers who have held senior positions in various trade, consumer and Fleet Street titles.

I think it's pretty safe to say that clients appreciate good copy, and are willing to pay for top notch content. This is even more in demand now that various marketing people have started talking about Content Marketing.

Before you all run away screaming, Content Marketing is a, well, marketing term for good, useful copy. Rather than advertising, it aims to actually be useful to the reader / viewer / coelacanth / whatever. Companies want to talk to customers. It's just that, for a while, they didn't realise that the way to talk to customers was to talk to, rather than at, them. SEO and the like were a means to an end, and that end was getting a bit of sloppy, cheap copy in front of someone's eyes via clever search engine tricks, rather than on merit alone.

What does all this mean? The last decade or so of publishers racing to the bottom has taught everyone in the food chain, and especially companies that pay for advertising, marketing and PR, that there's no substitute for quality, be it independent or paid for.Funny that.

The tricky bit is making it work for us as mildly- or extremely talented journo-shaped people. Organisations like the one sending out emails like the one above will probably remain - simply because every industry needs lowest-common-denominator bottom feeders.

Apologies for Friday night optimism. Normal service will resume once I've missed another night's sleep on account of the toddler and/or baby.

Ben

[Bryan Betts]

Useful to be reminded that I'm not alone...

Bryan (the sleep-deprived grouch)

[Rosie Niven]

[Simone Castello]

Bah humbug, where are these agencies willing to pay top notch for content marketing? 

Last year I lost a job working for a Pfizer account through an agency because I was too expensive at 250 a day! I had done three campaigns for a major competitor prior to pitching so I thought it was rather shocking to hear that my rather modest rate was too much. And before people think it's a lot of money, we are talking writing 7-10 hours a day non stop as the deadlines are tight. 

So my hunch is that agencies are putting massive markups on copywriters' fee, which they keep low. 

Same goes on in consultancy. I know a financial consultant who was paid 400 a day, but the client got billed 1000+ a day for his time. His work went to client as it was, there no was no editing or any tinkering from the firm to justify this huge markup. He found out by chance. 

So I just wonder how much markup the agencies I worked for put on top of my fee as the final copy has been pretty much close to what I delivered. There was only one case when my coply got subbed but they were more like magaziney features than marketing/ad copy.

I don't do much copywriting nowadays, I provide SEO content direct or do local work for a publisher and the university. I won't be commuting to London to be told my day rate is too high when the client is a multinational company grossing out billions by somebody who is in their 20s and think they are doing me a favour. 

Simone Castello

http://www.simonecastello.co.uk/

@simonecas

http://www.linkedin.com/in/simonecastellodigitalwriter

---

[Michael Newlands]

It's the same in research as well. I was getting paid £250 a day by Informa Telecoms and Media a while back and they were billing £1000 plus and on another more recent gig I was getting £500 a day but the client was being billed £1000 while the middleman did very little indeed.

Mike N